KANCHANLAL NATHUBHAI JARIWALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in TEN. B.S.90/1996. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners and the respondents were the tenants of land bearing Survey No. 375 of Village Vesu, Taluka Choryasi and District Surat and since then they are in possession of the said lands. The petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4 are paying Rs. 700 as rent p.a. to respondent No.2 upto 1976 and thereafter they were paying Rs. 1000. The petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4 applied before the Mamlatdar, Choryasi u/s. 70(b) and u/s. 32(g) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The ld. Mamlatdar declared the petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4 as the tenants of the land in question and fixed the purchase price at Rs. 7230/-. The respondent No.2 appeared before the Mamlatdar and conceded that the petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4 are the tenants of the land and the receipts of rent produced on record are given by him. It is further stated that the respondent No.2 has withdrawn the amount of purchase price deposited by the petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4. Thereafter on 24.10.83 the names of the petitioners and respondents No. 3 & 4 are mutated in the revenue records of right (Village Form No.6) vide Entry No. 1214 and the same was certified on 8.1.84 after following due procedure of law. It is further stated that the value of the land in question increased due to afflux of time and hence respondent No.2 preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 51 of 1996 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Surat. The said appeal was dismissed after hearing both the parties vide order dated 9.7.1996.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said order of the Dy. Collector, the respondent No.2 had preferred Revision Application No. TEN.B.S. 90/96 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The respondent No.2 after lapse of more than 6 years preferred a second application for stay of the order dtd. 9.7.96 of the Dy. Collector and the Tribunal has decided the said interim application in favour of respondent No.2 and stayed the order passed by the Dy. Collector.

(3.) It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition filed by the petitioners under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.